How to be confessional
Steve Holmes discusses the Peter Enns affair, and asks what it means to be confessional. “Glancing through the published material, my overwhelming sense is that the real problem is that WTS was not confessional enough, or at least not secure enough in its own confessional status.”
The reason WTS can't be confessional enough in this instance is that the Reformed Confessions can't support their doctrine of Scripture, which, as Stephen points out in his post, means that WTS can't use the confessions against Enns.
You may well be right, Chris, but that isn't what I said in my post. I haven't read the documents carefully enough to have any opinion on how the Westminster Confession, Enns's book, and the account(s?) of Scripture in the WTS official documents line up. All I said was that, for whatever reason, the released documents did not simply line up Enns's statements against the Westminster standards. It may be for the reason you say, but it the absence of reading much more carefully, I am in no position to make that judgement.
Steve, I reread your post and you are indeed correct. Sorry for putting words in your mouth.
Hi Chris, thanks, and no problem--I only jumped in because I'm speaking at a conference with some WTS folks in a couple of months time...
Steve
Post a Comment