The Dr. is not amused (their Peter Enns problem)

On various Reformed internet sites they are discussing a professor at a 'major' Reformed seminary named Peter Enns who has written a book attempting a downgrade of the Reformed doctrine on Scripture (i.e. he's a typical liberal theologian you find in all seminaries, so-called conservative seminaries or admittedly liberal seminaries).

In it all the Reformed Christians who still can see how Peter Enns is wrong on Scripture have now had the uncomfortable thought placed in the backs of their minds that they can't get rid of that what produces a Peter Enns and all his legion of young followers is refusing to humble yourself to the received, traditional text Word of God to begin with and adopting the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and the versions of the 'bible' based on them hence getting rid of the uncomfortable feeling of being in the presence of God's authority and switching that for the much more comfortable and easy to deal with feeling of being in the presence of man's (in this case scholar's, academia's) authority.

Also what is revealed in all this is another reason why these Reformed types refuse to humble themselves to the received traditional text Word of God: it's because that is what those lowly unwashed Christians do. Those people who actually believe all this stuff.

It is common for unregenerate self-identified Christians to not have love for the followers of Jesus Christ. They love academia, and acquiring letters after (and before) their names, and being part of worldly organizations, and writing endless books and articles (not a totally vain enterprise, but for Christians it *usually* is). They are not artists or inspired novelists either, so their books tend to be endless rehashes of things written better in the past and so on.

And those lowly Christian strangers often, not always because it's not always necessary, but often have been up the mountain and back regarding influences 'scholars' pride themselves on being the sole arbiters of, yet the lowly Christians tended to actually, like, climb the mountain and get understanding of and from those influences.

Anyway, look at this recent exchange on this subject on the PuritanBoard between a 'lowly' Christian and a well-known seminary professor who all on that board are quick to call 'Dr.' whenever he appears (if any of them ever has a broken arm I'll bet they won't be seeking out his knowledge and skill at that point, but I digress; I just wanted to make the point that sometimes 'Dr.' has a practical reason to be placed before a person's name):

I got a WTS graduate (a pastor) upset once when I said I was not a product of a "theological cemetery", but there is much truth to it. Is there a sound seminary these days? MARS? Reformed Baptist Seminary? (apart from the baptistic stuff -- sorry credos!) Any that can be recommended?

So much apostatizing begins over issues of Scripture, both OT and NT. And this seems -- to me, with my peculiar point of view -- to be intrinsic to Critical and Eclectic Text assumptions (I would have to include Majority Text too, to some extent, I'm afraid), where what we have is a provisional Scripture dependent on ongoing studies and research. Pandora's Box has been opened in this discipline and there is no getting what came out back in. The "best minds" in Evangelical (and Reformed) scholarship are taken with the notion of progress in determining the text of Scripture. Within this paradigm anything is fair game.

Does the future of P & R churches depend on graduates from seminaries? Theological education used to be a great blessing; now it is increasingly becoming a bane. And we are locked into drawing our fish from these pools, which are more and more polluted with poisons.

I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.

Steve Rafalsky

Well, the seminary professor saw this and couldn't allow it to stand without a sound thwack of a response:

Steve,

When those untrained men can raise people from the dead, speak natural foreign languages without learning them, shake off serpents, survive stoning, beatings, drownings, be transported by the Spirit from place to place, and even pronounce a death sentence.

Until then seminaries are still a good idea.

Yes there are solid confessional seminaries. I can think of one or two.

R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology

It would seem, not surprisingly, that the good Dr. Clark has a mocking attitude towards the work of the Holy Spirit within born again believers. When one fears and reveres man and man's authority more than God and God's authority it would follow one would have this abiding attitude and need to mock lowly born again believers, not to mention, again, the received traditional text Word of God that God preserves for His own and that His own have defended through time and history, persecution and martyrdom.

If I've been able to play just a little role in putting such uncomfortable thoughts in the backs of your minds, seminary people and other Village of Morality types, all I can say is: you're welcome.