The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum What's going on at WTS-P?

There is a Save Our Seminary online petition, and upon reading it, I've figured out the author of it doesn't much care for Doug Phillips and the Vision Forum, but there's not much explanation as to what the "narrow view" is that's allegedly being promoted at WTS-P.

Anyone here have the skinny on what's going on?

I thought some who are familiar with WTS would know the skinny.

My hunch is that it is a somewhat in-house dispute among the faculty that some outside agenda-driven groups are taking advantage by leaking information out. Of course, leaking the info out is supposedly for the purpose of advancing one point of view.

Sadly, I don't know the particulars to help in regards to why the disagreements - are they minor or major. However, the outside agenda-driven groups will egg it on even if the in-house people are striving for reconcialition, if needed. OTOH, it might be a major in-house fight. I just don't know.

Pilgrim, aren't you a WTS grad?

Anne,

This is the first I have heard of any problems at WTS-P, thanks to your post. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> However, after reading through all of the responses to the blog you linked to and doing some further research it would appear that some of the newer faculty members have taken a questionable road in their "scholarship". Those respondents on that blog seem to be in defense of these men, e.g., Peter Enns.

Now, what is all this brouhaha about? Well, apparently Enns has proposed a new biblical hermeneutic to defend the inspiration and reliability/trustworthiness of Scripture. In doing so, IMHO, he has erred; putting a screen door in a submarine. The supporters of Enns and others are wanting more "tolerance" (a favorite catch word these days) among the more traditional faculty members so as to allow such "scholarship" to have academic freedom and acceptance. But we all know what that generally means and the results of such "tolerance", e.g., NPP, FV, Shepherd, semi-Pelagianism, Theonomy, etc., etc., ad nauseam. To give some validity to my assessment please notice that John H. Armstrong was one of the respondents who echoed his typical cry for "tolerance" in scholarship and which toleration has led him to FV.

Here are a couple of links that might shed some light on this controversy:

1. Paul Helm's Blog

2. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evange... Old Testament - a critique by Paul Helm

Some of this material may be a little challenging to some but I feel it is definitely worth the effort working through it. If nothing else, it is valuable to once again see how this new trend in "scholarship" uses familiar words/terms but redefines them but without revealing the morphing of those terms. The result is deception at least and an open door to dangerous teachings and even heresy, contra to the long accepted confessional doctrines.

In His grace,

Anne,

Lane Keister posted this today.

Between Pilgrim's response and Lane's, I've got the gist, I think. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Jeff and Kyle,

Thanks for the info and links.

What through me off was in the original link provided by Anne with its discussion of Vision Forum. I'm not too fond of the organization and wondered why Dr Lilliback attended one of their functions as the keynote speaker.

Apparenly, that has nothing to do with the controversy but just dropping names in attempts to gain support.

John,

Correct. The article questioned by Anne is a case study in fear-mongering, in which the followers of fringe group B (here Enns) assert their orthodoxy by implying that the orthodox core is indistinguishable from fringe group A (here the theonomists). Works every time.