All Comments for: Westminster Theological Suspension | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > April (Web-only)

Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2008 |

Westminster Theological Suspension

Peter Enns's book Inspiration and Incarnation created a two-year theological battle that resulted in his suspension.

Sarah Pulliam | posted 4/01/2008 04:05PM

Westminster Theological Seminary's board voted to suspend tenured professor Peter Enns last week after a two-year theological debate over his 2005 book, Inspiration and Incarnation.

The board chairman, ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 57 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

Edward T. Babinski

Posted: April 09, 2008 6:32 PM

A famous case among Presbyterians similar to that of Dr. Peter Enns's suspension was that of Henry Preserved Smith in the 1890s. You can read about it in his book, THE HERETIC'S DEFENSE. H.P. Smith (not to be confused with H. P. Lovecraft!) also wrote, INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY; A CRITICAL EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL (THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY); OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY; THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL; and a book on MARTIN LUTHER, among other works. Edward T. Babinski

Abril

Posted: April 08, 2008 5:23 PM


Let him go. He should be glad of it. Another seminary will grab him up, grant him an immediate tenured position, and probably pay him more money. It's not like he's a heretic.

WCM	Posted: April 08, 2008 3:50 AM


Scripture is Divine and infallible. Creeds and confessions are human and fallible. When such human instruments become inflexible inquisitions follow. Will we never learn from our sad history?

Bill	Posted: April 07, 2008 6:01 PM

WCF Chapter 1: X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Why is the WTS deciding the issue on the basis of the WCF instead of Scripture? The WCF explicitly states controversies are to be settled on the basis of Scripture, not the confession itself. I can't speak to the specific issues around Dr. Enns, but can conclude the trustees by appealing to the WCF vilolated the WCF... Scriptures are inspired. The WCF is not...

Kathy

Posted: April 07, 2008 12:29 PM


Can everyone please try to be respectful of other people posting comments? There is no need to be mean and sarcastic if you disagree with what another person posts. Remember, they'll know we are Christians by our love, not our meanness.

qualified to comment?

Posted: April 05, 2008 1:31 PM

I'm confused. Art Boulet (who appears to be a student of Enns) says that we can't "weigh in" on "the issue" until we have read Enns's book. Fair enough. (Apparently Mr. Boulet has access to the handbook for how to respond to online articles.) But if "the issue" is about certain faculty and Board member objections to the book it would appear that Mr. Boulet is breaking the rules by chiming in. After all, he informs us that he is "in the dark" and "not informed...[of] what the issues actually are."

Anthony

Posted: April 05, 2008 1:17 PM


Have you seen Moslems writing such books or even thinking that their Holy Book is infallible? Well, that should convince us, right? The Muslim "approach" in the world overall has created an immense amount of pain and suffering. The very idea that our scripture and our faith can't stand up to rigorous questioning, examination, and discussion is ludicrous. What next, inquisition?

art boulet

Posted: April 04, 2008 3:19 PM

Part of the problem of this issue, as displayed by many comments thus far, is that everyone wants to chime in on the issue without actually reading the book first. I would encourage everyone to read the book so you can actually understand what Dr. Enns says instead of relying on what others have said in reviews or summaries of the book. It is not fair to speak about the issue if you have not actually read the book. Once you have, then you can weigh in on the discussion and your comments will actually hold some weight. Another problem is the procedural side of the issue. Those who have objected to Dr. Enns' orthodoxy have left the entire Westminster community in the dark. They have not formally, judicially charged Dr. Enns with anything. They have also not informed the students, who are being submitted to this "heterodoxy," what the issues actually are. It seems that secrecy is being prized above transparency; shadows above light. This is why it is so frustrating as a student.

Don Maurer

Posted: April 04, 2008 11:44 AM


I did not read the book. I just read this article. The book has a strange thesis. Does the author believe that there was error in Christ's human nature?

it only takes a Sparks

Posted: April 04, 2008 8:53 AM


The Kenton Sparks has spoken - let all be silent and learn that nobody knows anything for sure, except Kent who is certain that nobody can know anything for sure. Here is Kenton yet again predictably traipsing through cyberspace with his tired old creed about "death to all creeds". How Boring!

Kent Sparks

Posted: April 03, 2008 8:31 PM

The theologically-trained faculty voted 12-8 that Enns's work is within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith. That the board would find otherwise reveals that something is deeply wrong in this situation (is most of the faculty heterodox by Westminster standards, or does the board not have a clue?). Personally, I suspect that the real problem is this: the board is unwilling to admit that the problems addressed in Pete's book are real, and hence, they don't believe that they need a solution. But for better or worse, it seems to me that the problems are profoundly real ... and we'll need better solutions than Lillback and the WTS board can provide. The so-called "emerging church" is emerging for a reason. It wants to put the pat answers behind us, and confront head-on the genuine challenges that faith faces in a complex world. I'm afraid that as we move forward, Westminster Theological Seminary will no longer be a place to get equipped for that.

Reformed Sinner (DC)

Posted: April 03, 2008 8:21 PM

Sorry Dr. Cosden, I don't agree that what Dr. Enns says is what John Calvin said. While there are superficial similarities, for John Calvin also used the word "accommodation", however, Calvin also emphasized as much as "philosophy of humanities" may aid us in understanding Scripture, but ultimately the authority of interpreting of Scripture lies in the Scripture itself, not extra-Biblical sources. See B. B. Warfield's wonderful discussion in "Biblical Authority and Inspiration" and how B.B. Warfield clarify the term "accommodation" in the Reformed Faith, and Warfield's thoughtful critique of the Incarnational Analogy as seriously lacking.

james

Posted: April 03, 2008 7:33 PM

Sometimes in the course of the church's pilgrimmage, we cannot agree on an issue that is fundamental to our faith that we must sadly part company and let God's kingdom prosper in different parts of His vineyard. May God's grace overcome our weaknesses for we know that in glory we would wish we were more charitable in our words, thoughts and actions when we disagreed on earth over divine mysteries our intellects tried to grapple with and were found wanting.

An evangelical that actually has evangelical conviction

Posted: April 03, 2008 7:22 PM

"Stop trying to make Enns harmonize his diverse statements on Scripture, myth, etc. and learn to appreciate the beauty of tension - a beauty the Westminster divines simply could not comprehend." What an awful statement! 'Tension' is the new code word that self-professed evangelicals use instead of 'Errancy' and 'Fallibility' to avoid being ID'ed as a liberal. Why don't you people that 'appreciate the beauty of tension' just say what you really mean? You think the Bible is an errant mixture of divine truth and human myths and mistakes and your postmodern sensibilities like it better that way. After all, clarity, consistency, certainty, and absolute truth are so closed-minded.

Watching and Praying

Posted: April 03, 2008 4:04 PM

While I'm sympathetic with a lot of points Enns raises, I also recognize that the board has the right, indeed duty to guard what they perceive to be the integrity of the seminary, since the students are future leaders of the churches. We might all benefit from a little humility in holding our own positions even as we seek to defend them carefully and persuasively. Emotions are high, making everyone especially prone to overstatement. I'm also disappointed that Prof. Taylor would propagate these overstatements, which seems incautious and unnecessarily smearing of Westminster's good name. I've seen church politics get ugly over (in my mind) most trivial doctrinal differences -- issues that would make the situation with Enns seem as monumental as the early Trinitarian debates. Maybe it shows we have a few too many curmudgeons around... but demonic oppression? Maybe it's time to step out of the ivory tower and into the churches for a hefty dose of reality.

Miah	Posted: April 03, 2008 1:38 PM

the book compromises the Bible's divine inspiration, then we must ALL (true believers/Christians) stand against the author and anyone who even tries to demonstrate against the source of the infallible words of GOD. it is by faith we either believe and disbelieve that the Bible is the Infallible words of GOD. I strongly believe that Christians need to put all their remarkable God-gifted talents and skills to unite Christians around the globe instead of dividing them and create occasions to take opposite stands. Have you seen Moslems writing such books or even thinking that their Holy Book is infallible? why should Christians even doubt that the Holy Bible may be infallible words of GOD. I stand in total agreement with the Institute's decision.

WTS student

Posted: April 03, 2008 11:33 AM


When are the faculty minority and Board majority of Westminster going to wake up and embrace, rather than object to, the messiness of Enns's book? Stop trying to make Enns harmonize his diverse statements on Scripture, myth, etc. and learn to appreciate the beauty of tension - a beauty the Westminster divines simply could not comprehend.

Jim M. Roane, PhD

Posted: April 03, 2008 10:48 AM

Obviously, Peter Enns's book Inspiration and Incarnation must have had some merit since it took 2 years to brand him a heretic; however, unless I am badly mistaken the Westminster Confession is not the product of infallible men, so on what basis do these modern jesuits base their authority? Apparently, the human element is present in Scripture for even St. Paul distinguishes between ouk ego all’ ho kurios [not myself but the Lord] (v. 10) and ego lego oux ho kurios [I myself say, not the Lord] (v. 12). So, what is the big fuss? So, no matter how hard we try to distance humanity from the responsibility of the process to deliver God’s word to humanity we can not escape the sobering fact that humanity is part of the process.

Dan Poxon

Posted: April 03, 2008 10:06 AM

Following on closing comments by Marsden and Noll, I find incomprehensible the notion that a document which is itself an interpretation of the Bible (e.g. the Westminster Confession) is at the center of any discussion about Enns' recent book. This kind of institutional partisanship causes me and I'm sure many others under 40 (and a few over also) to wonder whether the boards of such places have any trust for those entrusted to teach their young. Instead it looks like butt coverage: "Enns and his book are at the cutting edge and therefore a potential liability for our constituency" or something like that. The problem is the assumption that God will never uproot anything He plants. There is only one institution that Jesus guaranteed, his church. Everything else should be thought of not as a work that must be protected against people like Enns (who appears to be responding to much greater intellectual forces which the board has yet to become aware of) but as an offering for God's own use.

A rule

Posted: April 03, 2008 6:38 AM

The bible was written and compiled under the express supervision of God. To deny its inerrancy is to open the possibility of wicked people to choose which parts they want to follow and which parts to reject for their own libertine benefit. The Westminster Shorter Catechism expressly states that all scripture is the rule by which we are to know and enjoy God. By that knowledge and enjoyment we become godly. We cannot pick and choose according to untrustworthy liberal human scholarship. It is for our freedom that the "rule" of scripture is declared absolute. Otherwise we will surely slip and slide and perhaps break an ankle as we fall.

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: April 03, 2008 3:58 AM


The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is not Scripture itself (John 5: 39-40) but "the Lamb (which appears) killed and, yet, standing in the centre of the throne" (Rev. 5), i.e., recognizing Jesus Christ through vision made possible (John 14: 15-21) as the immortal One! The former borders on bibliolatry!

Scott Park

Posted: April 03, 2008 12:15 AM


This is precisely why I left my past denomination, which seemed to think that the Westminster Confessions was inerrant too. The Westminster Confession was written in a particular historical context, which is much different today. The WC has much to teach us, but it should be dialogue. And I'll say that Scots Confession was better and more life giving, than the overly systematic WC.

The G

Posted: April 02, 2008 10:08 PM

Though I am anti-Calvinism, I applaud anybody left In Christianity maintaining their institution's required adherents for their beliefs. That is fair to the institution, to other faculty, to those who support it in prayer and financially, and to the students who go their to learn what they think the school stands for. I'd want my money back if I sat in a class where I thought they believed in inspiration and discovered the prof held to the Q hyper-myth, for example. If I wanted anything but what WTS stood for, the choice out there is a dime a dozen of schools who no longer abide by linguistic hermeneutical interpretation but have adopted anything goes.

Be_Reformed

Posted: April 02, 2008 9:17 PM


If Enns really challenge the inerrancy of scripture, he should be kicked out. WTS may be wrong, but I appreciate her seriousness. Glory be to God, we still have serious seminary like WTS in the 21st century.

Ignatius

Posted: April 02, 2008 7:14 PM

Quote from article "The debate lies in whether Enns's incarnational analogy falls outside of the Westminster Confession" Perhaps the issue here is the inspiration and inerrancy of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Nothing against confessions here but isn't the Westminster Confession an synthesis and interpretation of scripture and not the Bible itself? I do wish the best for you Peter Enns and hope that a thousand new doors open for you which will allow you to to think anew and raise new questions along with other likeminded colleagues.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment