Since the present keruffle over Green and Fantuzzo has spilled over to Waltke and Enns, now is a good time to revisit Waltke's response to Enns. Waltke is a far superior scholar, who takes the time to exegete Enns's prooftexts in a way that Enns himself fails to do. And Waltke clearly has a higher view of Scripture. Keep in mind, too, that this exchange too place at a time when Enns was still feigning faith in the inerrancy of Scripture–a pose he quickly dropped after his departure from Westminster:
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI thought the current controversy was just Waltke vs Green/ Fantuzzo. Why do you keep dragging Enns back into things?
In the documents WTS published as to why Green was no longer acceptable Enns was never mentioned. Enns has moved on. WTS has moved on. Isn't it time to do the same?
I want to see some in-depth Waltke vs Green or Waltke vs Fantuzzo next level analysis. I'm being very sincere when I say that that would be interesting. It would be a welcomed break from beating the old Enns dead horse again ...... and again.... and again.....
I'm not dragging Enns back into things. He's been inserting himself into the debate.
DeleteSince Green and Fantuzzo have published so little, an in-depth comparative analysis isn't possible.
As I've pointed out before, folks like you are naive to imagine the two documents by Green tell the whole behind-the-scenes story. You need to learn how to think for yourself instead of reading a script someone handed you.
Your complaint is belied by Fantuzzo's open letter, where he says: "Tipton also objected to my view of the controversy over Enns’s, Inspiration and Incarnation. I thought OTI students should read the book for themselves, that we (OT students) had an opportunity to go back to the drawing board. I told Tipton that I believed WTS was drawing lines too strongly, that it was rolling back the clock too far."
DeleteSo folks like Fantuzzo kept the Enns paradigm on the table.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI know you generate a lot of content. How about doing some sort of piece based on the Machen's essay in the link below:
http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2014/09/november-24-2/
Perhaps Machen would have much more to say about the current WTS administration then we give him credit for. I read a student's critique of WTS a while back that claimed that the current faculty proclaim the founder's word but not their spirit. The article linked to about does give some legitimacy to that thought. Not so much where, theologically, but the how WTS has ended where it has. I honestly think that if there was more clarity from the WTS administration as to why they do what they do there would be less public backlash. Not that they have to justify their decisions but be able to show why they made them would be helpful.
I'm not especially interested in exhuming corpses to serve as ventriloquist dummies.
DeleteMachen is not the standard of comparison. We're not called to be consistent with our favorite scholars or theologians. The only consistency that matters is consistency with the word of God. You lack a grasp of what is important in this debate.
Delete