Commentaries
28 comments | Permalink
Hall Harris offers advice on choosing commentaries for your library.
I've mentioned this before, but with regard to NT resources, Denver Seminary's exegesis bibliography is one of the most helpful there is.
I've mentioned this before, but with regard to NT resources, Denver Seminary's exegesis bibliography is one of the most helpful there is.
posted by JT at Sunday, February 10, 2008
28 Comments:
Denver Seminary has an OT one also that is worth consulting when buying a commentary.
That list, in places, reflects Denver Seminary's slightly liberal bent.
Steve what "liberal bent" are you referring to? Or are you just speculating?
Denver's list is a great resource. I've been looking for something like that on the internet for a long time. Thanks for posting it! Also, thanks Ryan for the info on the OT list. I'm not really seeing the "liberal bent" at all either by the way.
I've not had the opportunity to work through the Den. Sem. bibliography yet, but as an alumnus, I would agree that in several ways, my Alma Mater is drifting. Even when I was there, some twenty years ago, the seminary was moving toward a vociferous egalitarianism, and it has only gotten worse. It is, these days, the seminary's default position. Craig Blomberg was and is a complimentarian, but has never, it seems to me, dealt with the issue as if it really mattered, but merely as an academic debate.
They have also, IMO, compromised on the gospel itself as evidenced by their boasting in the fact that they have accepted as a student, and then graduated, a convert to Roman Catholicism who plans to teach NT at a Roman Catholic university. This is all in an article published, I believe in the fall of 2006 in the Seminary magazine. In that article, the student is quoted as saying that the differences between RCism and Protestantism is mostly semantic. There was not a word of refutation in the article nor in the rest of the magazine. Rather, the entire article had the tone of back-patting. "Oh, see how diverse and tolerant we are here at Den. Sem. We even accept and graduate Roman Catholics."
There are good men there, no doubt. Blomberg and Doug Groothius are two. But I wish someone there would raise their voices against this kind of thing.
As it happens, many of the best technical commentaries are written by persons who hold a more "liberal bent" theologically. This doesn't mean that Denver Seminary is advocating liberalism...they are simply trying to inform you of the best technical commentaries on the market.
Agreed, Josh. The commentaries included in a bibliography is no reason to label an institution as "liberal". And in the historic, technical usage of the term, Den. Sem. is not. That being said, as an institution it is, I think undoubtedly, drifting. Some might look at that drift as commendable. I do not.
I personally think it's wonderful that they're "drifting" to a more "liberal" bent. Staunch dogmatism is simply unhealthy and turns people away from the Gospel. The stance on women is surely very ambiguous, and they probably recognize this. They have some great professors there, and who in the world wouldn't want to live in Denver? I wish i would have checked it out before I chose a seminary...I didn't even know about it.
As Josh said, probably the best commentaries (technical/advanced ones) are more liberal. It is because with these guys there is no agenda to protect ambiguous and dogmatic doctrines like it is with a (e.g.) Tom Schreiner, John Macarthur, D.A. Carson, etc. I actually really respect you, Josh, for saying that, because I know how reformed and conservative you are. It really makes me have much respect for you that you can see that, unlike most conservative reformed individuals.
I think it's wonderful they graduated and accept Roman Catholics! Students do have to agree with the NAE doctrinal statement before they get accepted and before they graduate...so he obviously did and does believe in them...so what's the big deal? We really need to be more mature in how we deal and speak with people of a different theological and ecclesiastical background than ourselves. There are many, many Christian Roman Catholics. In fact, the vast majority of martyrs for the sake of Christ in the past 200 years have been Roman Catholics! Did they go to hell since they were Roman Catholics? Some people probably honestly think so...sad.
Anyways, with excellent scholars like Blomberg, Klein, and Hess, Denver Seminary is doing just fine. I actually wish they offered a PhD program b/c I would think about getting it there! What's not to love about sitting under amazing scholars on a beautiful campus, in a beautiful town, next to a beautiful river and lake, right at the base of one of the most beautiful mountain chains in the world? I really wish I would have given this place a shot!
Does anybody know if they are affiliated with a denomination?
Denver Seminary is no longer affiliated with any denomination, it used to be conservative Baptist.
I am just curious that when people say it is liberal what are they comparing it to, or what seminaries are they comparing it with?
Luke, last question first. As Ryan said, DS was founded as a seminary of the Conservative Baptist Association, but now denies anything more than the historical connection. In fact, I believe that my graduating year may have been the last time they actually included the words "Conservative Baptist" on the diplomas, and that was almost 20 years ago.
As for the rest of what you say, I agree with you, that they do have some good professors. I said as much in a previous post, although we might not agree on every name in our respective lists of who those might be. ;-)
I, however, don't think its so wonderful that they accept and graduate Roman Catholics. You can feel free to number me among those who seek to retain certain dogmatisms, particularly when it comes to the gospel. Contrary to your comments, drifting from these things is not healthy at all. Rather they are signs of creeping apostasy.
Of course, if one sees no difference between the gospel of Scripture and the gospel of Rome, then what DS is doing wouldn't be a "big deal" as you say. And that is precisely the problem.
You ask, speaking of Roman Catholic "martyrs", "Did they go to hell since they were Roman Catholics?" To even ask the question is to demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding much that is at stake in this discussion. No, they did not go to hell "since they were Roman Catholics". No one goes to hell because of membership in a given organization and I do not doubt there are Christians within the RC Church. But I also take the RCC at its own word, and therefore must conclude that one cannot both hold to RCC dogma and be a regenerate Christian. But that is not because they are RCC. Rather, men go to hell because they are sinners who have rejected the redemption offered in Christ. Since the RC church has condemned that gospel as anathema, and proclaims a gospel that is other than the biblical gospel, dependent as it is upon the works of man in conjunction with God's grace rather than solely the grace of God.
As for signing the NAE doctrinal statement, the only thing this proves is that the doctrinal statement is not being taken seriously. The first article of the statement reads thusly, "We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God." This is not true of Roman Catholicism which also holds Tradition to be authoritative, and both this student and the administration and faculty of DS know this. And yet, as was the case in the mainline seminaries early in the last century, a Statements of Faith is permitted to be turned to wax, being molded and shaped, redefined and ignored, depending upon the person and his purpose. This was precisely Machen's complaint in Christianity & Liberalism.
Frankly, this attitude demonstrated by the seminary and in your post has always puzzled me. What has changed since the Reformation? Or were the Reformers wrong? If they were wrong, or if those issues that brought about the Reformation either no longer exist or are no longer important, it seems to me that the correct course of action for anyone believing this is to return to Rome. Why would one continue in schism over things that no longer matter?
Ryan, I think that to use the term "liberal" in regard to DS is somewhat inaccurate, as I have stated before. It has certainly not embraced what one would normally think of as theological liberalism, historically defined. This is why I speak of it as having "drifted" rather than "gone liberal". Frankly, like much of contemporary evangelicalism, there isn't enough theology being positively stated to describe it as liberal. Rather, what is prevalent in DS and evangelicalism as a whole, is theological apathy. The drift is seen in an attitude which says that nothing really matters all that much. Egalitarianism or Complimentarianism? Doesn't matter. The gospel as monergistic or synergistic? Doesn't matter. The only thing that contemporary evangelicals want to be dogmatic about today is that we shouldn't be dogmatic. We'll give lip-service to Scriptural inspiration and maybe even inerrancy, but will abandon, for all intents and purposes, any convictions regarding the sufficiency of Scripture.
The result is that the ETS cannot bring itself to declare things like Open Theism out of evangelical bounds and a DS professor states that Calvinism is more dangerous than Open Theism. Welcome to Wonderland.
What DS professor stated Calvinism was more dangerous than open theism? Also could you point me to where it was said?
He didn't use those words, but that was the gist of it. Google the Denver Seminary Journal of 2002 and read Bill Klein's review of The Most Moved Mover, by Clark Pinnock. He's virtually glowing about Pinnock and OT while uniformly critical of Calvinists.
Quite an interesting array of posts. Wish people would give full names and own their comments more so more direct interaction could occur. "Drifting" suggests a slow, not very conscious move in a certain direction. I can't see that applying to us because everything anyone's mentioned in these posts has involved conscious choices. Our RC student was one of two I've taught in 21 years and don't know of any more we have--hardly a trend and he did seriously affirm the NAE statement, but not all that historic Catholicism has affirmed. We have more complementarians on our faculty than egalitarians and no one who is as outspoken on the latter as several were twenty years ago. Hard to see how people can think I don't think the issue matters when I've published half a dozen articles on the topic! The bibliographies are meant to highlight top scholarship with a disproportionately large number of evangelical entries, but hardly exclusively, and esp. not in those areas of OT criticism where evangelicals have scarcely entered. The take on Bill Klein is flat out wrong, though if all someone reads is one book review, I suppose you might come away with such a view. But anyone who hasn't lived on the inside of the school for the last twenty years, as I have, should be much more cautious about the sweeping generalizations he makes than our critic in these posts; he's simply wrong. Blessings to all of you who tried to see things more accurately.
Glad to have you join the discussion, Dr. Blomberg. If your comments about full names and owning comments was directed to me, let me assure you that I own everything I say, and am quite willing to be corrected. As for names, mine is Jim Harrison, which anyone could have discovered with one click of their mouse on the profile link that accompanies every comment post.
Allow me to respond point by point.
In regard to "drifting", I would not argue that the choices which the seminary has made have not been conscious. Of course they've been conscious choices. The fact remains that the seminary is not now where it once was. One can argue whether or not that is a good thing, but one cannot argue, I think you would agree, that things have not changed.
To argue that the seminary has had only two RC students in the last twenty one years, and that this does not constitute a trend, I think misses the point and clarifies what I mean by "drift". What is the purpose of Denver Seminary? If one were to ask that question of those who founded the seminary, is there any doubt that they would have said something to the effect that the purpose of the seminary is to train men for ministry in evangelical churches...to preach a reformational, evangelical gospel? Would they not also have considered a complimentarian position to be not only an option, but clearly stated biblical truth, the denial of which would constitute a twisting and denial of Scripture, no matter how sincerely that denial might be held? Of course they would. Hence, the seminary has drifted.
What then, are we to say about these specific issues that I've raised?
We have a young man accepted as a student who has converted from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism and whose goal is to teach New Testament in a Roman Catholic university. He states, without a word of contradiction anywhere in that article or in the entire magazine, that “The majority of the tension (between Catholicism and Evangelicalism) is because of misrepresentation.” I think it legitimate to ask, then, if DS any longer believes that there is any significant difference between the biblical gospel and the gospel of Rome. Was the Reformation a mistake? An overreaction? Or, as this student says, was the Reformation simply a matter of misrepresentation? And if there is a real difference between the biblical gospel and the gospel of Rome, would not his conversion to Rome constitute apostasy?
I'm not sure that what you say about him not affirming all that historic Catholicism has affirmed helps very much. I don't see any way around the conclusion that he's being dishonest with someone. Are you saying that he denies that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible? If so, he joined the Roman church under false pretenses, since this is not simply a "historic affirmation". It is a dogma, the assent to which is required of those in communion with the RCC. If he does not deny that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible, then I fail to see how he could honestly sign the NAE statement which specifies the Bible as the only authority.
I'm glad to hear that there are more complimentarians than egalitarians now present at the seminary. The fact remains, however, that the seminary explicitly considers either position to be acceptable, and has implicitly declared itself on the side of egalitarianism with the hiring of an female Old Testament professor who holds an "ordination" and boasts of 10 years of "pastoral" ministry.
As for my comments about these things "not mattering", that probably was a bit much, and I apologize. Of course it matters. People on both sides of the issue think it matters. The question then becomes, how much does it matter? There came a point in the history of the seminary when a turn was made. There came a point when someone said, "We should begin to teach that egalitarianism is just as acceptable as complimentarianism." At that point, apparently, no one, or not enough people in positions of influence, stood up and said, "No. The historic, orthodox position of the church for 2,000 years has been one of complimentarianism, and the position of the seminary from its inception has been complimentarianism. Most importantly, the scripture teaches complimentarianism, and we must not compromise the clear teaching of the word of God." It didn't matter that much.
You say that I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But I find it hard to imagine that the public face of the seminary as evidenced in its magazine and yes, Bill Klein's book review in which he comes right up to the line of accepting Open Theism as a legitimate evangelical position, is worse than the internal reality.
Though there is certainly the possibility of an "outsider" not seeing the whole picture, allow me to suggest that there is also the possibility of an "insider" being too close to the situation. Something akin to the "frog in the kettle" syndrome.
After all, the landscape is strewn with once orthodox institutions which are now, by any orthodox estimation, apostate. And not one of them apostasized overnight.
In spite of our differing points of view, I do wish to make clear my great respect for you and your work, Dr. Blomberg. Please do not read anything that I have written in any other light.
You gotta love the technological age. Well, not really. For one thing, you can type anything nasty and critical you want and hide behind a fake name (I'm not suggesting you're doing this Jim), but on the other hand, what you type is viewable to the people you type about!
Dr. Blomberg, thank you very much for responding to some of the comments. Your institution and colleagues needed to be defended against some unfair accusations made by some people.
Jim, you really need to lighten up pal. Egalitarianism can be proven just as much from Scripture as complementarianism. The institution where I go (which is very conservative) has a female OT professor as well...big deal. In fact, I'm at an institution (I won't say it's name due to the nature of the internet), that has always been very conservative and fairly reformed. We have professors here who are egalitarians and Arminians! As well as complementarians and Calvinists! Personally, as a student I really appreciate it b/c I'm not just hearing one side all the time and it provides a balance for those of us who lean on either side to give us things to think about.
Seriously bro, there are devout, on-fire, legit Christian brothers and sisters who are Arminian egalitarians. All sides have their proof-texts and can prove their position from the text. Your main problem seems to be about Bill Klein. Dr. Klein is amazing. His book, "New Chosen People" actually changed one of my professors views of what he thinks about election and reformed theology, which in turn changed my views. You really need to step back from this and ask yourself what really matters and what is really important. If somebody believes in the death, resurrection, deity and salvation provided in Christ then I can fellowship with them all day long, regardless of if they're Roman Catholic, open theists, Arminians, non-inerrantists, etc.
Also, there are many devout Catholic Christians. In fact, Raymond Brown was an incredible scholar and very well respected and he was Catholic. Avery Dulles is another one.
It is wonderful that Denver Seminary isn't as dogmatic about these things, because as a result I'm sure they're producing graduates of a higher caliber and more well-rounded. It is simply wrong to look at what church history fathers have believed and just adopt every belief they ever had. Historical theology is important, but evangelicals give if way too much credit and listen to people like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin more than they do the biblical text.
Basically, you're picking the wrong battles to fight
Is this what its come to, Luke? Egalitarianism can be proved just as much from Scripture as Complimentariansim? That's a nice post-modern, relativist sentiment. Virtually the whole of Christendom would have, until quite recently, disagreed with you not only in regard to the clarity of scripture on this issue, but also the significance of the issue. But we're 21st century Christians. How did the church survive before we got here and finally got it all right?
If you'd read a bit more carefully, you'll find that...
1) I never said I had a problem with a woman teaching Old Testament in a seminary. My point was the implicit endorsement of egalitarianism in hiring a woman who has been an "ordained pastor".
2)No where have I stated or inferred that Arminians or Egalitarians are not Christians.
3)My "main problem" is not and never has been Bill Klein. Until someone asked, I mentioned not Dr. Klein, but his published position.
As for your statement that as long as "somebody believes in the death, resurrection, deity and salvation provided in Christ then I can fellowship with them all day long, regardless of if they're Roman Catholic, open theists, Arminians, non-inerrantists, etc."...
...that's very tolerant of you. Clearly Paul was way out of line when he anathematized people who believed in the death, resurrection, deity and salvation provided in Christ, but just wanted to add that one tiny little extra of circumcision. I wonder, with criteria such as you've stated here, is there anyone who calls themselves a Christian of whom you would say, "No. You're not."? And if so, what would be the standard by which you would make such a judgment?
Perhaps you'll answer my previous question, since no one else has, of yet. Why do you remain outside the RC Church? If you see no difference between the gospel of Scripture and the RC gospel, what possible justification can you have for remaining in schism with Rome? After all, if the gospel is not at issue, everything else is fairly peripheral, isn't it? There really was no good reason for the reformation, and everything that followed from the reformation is illegitimate.
You mention Raymond Brown and Avery Dulles as Catholic Christians. I have no doubt, and have never argued that there are no Christians within the Catholic Church. But I must ask. Did these men deny the dogma of their own church? Did they ever disagree with the binding declaration of Trent which specifically anathematizes the gospel of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?
I realize that these historical declarations don't hold much interest for many people today. But if those statements have been nullified somewhere along the line, I'm sure I would have heard about it.
Finally, can we please do away with the straw men? They don't help anyone, nor do they advance the discussion. No one is listening to Augustine, Luther and Calvin more than Scripture. There is much in each to disagree with, as well as much which was correct. It seems to me that the greater fault of our time is the neglect of the past, rather than overdependence upon it.
I'll be anxiously awaiting Dr. Blomberg's response. If you'd actually like to interact with issues I'd be happy to do so. but if this is going to be reduced to the level of assertions, then there's really not much more to say.
Jim,
I was actually trying to be kind with the last post. I know it's tough to read someone's tone on a blog, so maybe you sensed I was being hateful and arrogant. Anyways, I'm sorry if you felt that way.
I could list 10 proof-texts to prove egalitarianism right now, but I refuse to get into that war with you. Context is everything bro, and Paul says particular things in particular contexts for a particular reason. The problem with us is that we universalize everything in the Scriptures and make them true at all times, all places, everywhere. Slavery is permitted...what do we do? Paul was fired up about the circumcision thing for a reason, and if you've studied Paul any and knew the situation then you would know what the reason was (which I assume you do since you seem seasoned). My main point in saying that was to communicate that there is a very small list one has to believe in order to be a Christian, and evangelicals try to make it long and big with our huge doctrinal statement and catechisms.
The most important thing is how you live...period. It makes me sick when people slander Rob Bell and places like Denver Seminary over minor issues that either don't matter that much or aren't necessary for salvation. It makes me sick because Christianity is about a person and not propositions. It makes me sick because it's all worthless if we're not loving our neighbor (who is unqualified according to Luke 10).
You can keep getting concerned about Denver Seminary going too far to the "left" or getting caught up in Roman Catholicism debates, but I'm saying these are pointless and unfruitful if we're not doing the things Christ told us to. And no, I'm pretty sure he didn't say to slander, criticize, and demean other people or institutions of the faith like is done on this site and people like Denny Burk's site ALL THE TIME. I honestly don't know how people want to be Christians after looking at such hogwash.
I'm just trying to tell you that you have the wrong focus. Worrying about Denver Seminary b/c Klein is sympathetic to open theism or because they're not connected to their staunch conservative roots anymore or b/c they're "drifting" more to the left is really irrelevant in light of eternity.
Not enough dependence on church history fathers? Are you kidding me? That's all I heard growing up, and at the institution I'm at it's emphasized far too much. Maybe not in your experience, but in mind there is way too much of an overemphasis. I heard Calvin,Luther, and Augustine quoted every Sunday as if it was giving the pastor authority to back up his points with quotes from these men. I'm also taught in some classes that we have to look throughout history to develop our theology and see what "orthodox" (who gives that definition and role, and that claim? Who's the authority who decides what's orthodox?) Christian history fathers believed. Then, and only then, can I call my beliefs "Christian". It's despicable.
Also, you make it sound like my arguments are dumb, stupid, and off the point, while you're being gracious and relevant. Come on bro, you've been every bit as unfair as I have
Also, just b/c you're associated with a particular denomination or branch of Christianity doesn't mean you agree with every thing that denomination or branch has traditionally stood for. At the place I go to school, I disagree with probably half of the doctrinal statement! But I chose it b/c I needed to be challenged and didn't want to go somewhere where I agreed with everything that was being said and taught. Raymond Brown was a Catholic scholar, that doesn't mean he has to accept everything Roman Catholicism has traditionally believed. I am a member of a souther Baptist church, I don't agree with complete abstinence from alcohol or that tithing is a Christian mandate. Labels are dangerous bro, and you can't attribute every belief to a person in a particular denomination or institute that it has traditionally stood for and is the majority/popular stance.
Anyways, I'm through here. If you wish to discuss other matters, I'll be happy to. Please, and I type this to myself as well, lets try to be more gracious with our tone next time...okay? There is no need to type some of the things we have written in the ways we did. Please forgive me if I have wronged you.
Luke
Jim,
I just read Klein's review of Pinnock's book. I actually thought it was extremely fair and he brought up good points. Pinnock has a voice all evangelicals need to listen to. The Calvinistic system simply can't answer some things due to that system, and often times make their system dictate what scripture says rather than letting scripture dictate what their system says.
In the end, he does no agree with openness theology on every point. He believes in complete omniscience, which no open theist does to the degree that Klein does. Klein is not a Calvinist...who cares? He believes in corporate election and emphasizes God's immanence and love more than his transcendence and "sovereignty" in the calvinistic sense. I suspect any Arminian or person who doesn't completely agree with Reformed theology to completely agree with Klein's review.
We're too hostile towards these people (Pinnock, Boyd, etc), and we read reviews by staunch Calvinists instead of reading their books and trying to learn from them.
I tend to agree with what Michael Bowman and Paul Copan said the other day on their blog. In the last 100 years, we have learned much more from liberal and critical scholarship than we have from conservative evangelical scholarship. By the way, this is someethinig 2 Calvinists said, check out reclaimingthemind.org and listen to their audio session on the Parchment and Pen blog about it.
In any case, he never said that Calvinism was more dangerous than open theism. However, and I actually think some reformed folk would agree with this (maybe it's wishful thinking), hyper and extreme Calvinism is more dangerous than open theism. Put another way, Calvinism has the tendency to be much more dangerous than open theism. I would agree with that statement. Now it's time for other people to tell me what a heretic I am.
Luke, As I said in my last post, there's no point in continuing this if one wishes to do nothing more than state assertions.
I'm sorry that you can't engage in debate without being personally offended. I have accused you of nothing. I have never said, as you imply, that you are dumb or stupid. And yet, you have falsely accused me of slander. My posts have addressed your positions, quoting your own words and interacting with them. I am sorry you have not sought to do the same, except in a superficial way.
I do want to address two things you said, and then I, too, will call it quits.
First, you say, "just b/c you're associated with a particular denomination or branch of Christianity doesn't mean you agree with every thing that denomination or branch has traditionally stood for." This isn't the Elks Club we're talking about. This is the Roman Catholic Church, which has the right and exercises the right, to establish dogmatic requirements for those who wish to be in its fellowship. The RCC has established, as belief binding upon all of its members, Tradition as equal in authority to Scripture. This believe is no less an obligation to the RCC than the deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Secondly, it appears my questions were not quite broad enough. In the light of your quite astounding assertion that "The most important thing is how we live...period" I should have asked not, why shouldn't you just go back to Rome, but why be a Christian at all? If the most important thing is how we live, then why not choose to follow Ghandi?
Answer as you like. Frankly, I think we're both better off calling it quits. One of my greatest problems with post-modernism has been amply demonstrated in our conversation.
Luke wrote: I'm just trying to tell you that you have the wrong focus. Worrying about Denver Seminary b/c Klein is sympathetic to open theism or because they're not connected to their staunch conservative roots anymore or b/c they're "drifting" more to the left is really irrelevant in light of eternity.
It's not irrelevant at all, Luke. A seminary is where men go to be trained in the work of rightly handling God's Word. A seminary's stance (or lack of a stance) on issues such as open theism, egalitarianism, and the very real issues related to the Roman Catholic church do, in fact, affect the training it offers.
God cares very much about how His Word, His truth, is handled. So having concerns over whether a seminary is firmly anchored in God's Word is extremely relevant.
Steve,
I didn't say it wasn't relevant for a seminary to not be grounded in God's word. I'm saying openness to ambiguous issues is what is relevant. And, in the case of egalitarianism/complementarianism, there are extremely ambiguous issues. We're not talking about a Yale divinity school or a Princeton seminary here, we're talking about an institution that is firmly evangelical.
If it breaks your heart that they're open to egalitarianism and open theism, then so be it. If you're that concerned about our institutions, then why not go start a staunch conservative Reformed one yourself where people will be taught "right" doctrine and how to "correctly handle" the word of truth.
Regardless of what you've heard or preached from the pulpits your whole live, there are very compelling arguments on both sides of the issues. And just standing behind your denomination or system of theology is not the way to go until after you have thoroughly studied the text and both sides of the issue. But hey, why do that when we can just read dogmatic authors like Piper or Carson or Mohler? They're "professionals", so we'll just agree with everything they say. Sound good?
Jim,
Since you're the only "objective" one here who is contributing to the conversation, then I will no longer take part in them since I'm not contributing to anything and am doing nothing more than "stating assertions" and am too "postmodern" for you. Your words would make even the most open-minded person in the world not want to dialogue with you...it's hopeless. I hope you understand one day what really matters and the things Christians should truly be dogmatic about. It's probably wishful thinking though. If Christian doctrine doesn't lead to a love of neighbor then it's worthless, and I can only hope that you are loving people and not just concerned with secondary doctrinal issues.
For some reason, people always get mad when I bring that up b/c they know it's the truth and they don't want to do it. They just say things like "follow Ghandi" or something. Sad.
Luke, Jim is correct. You're persistent in making hostile assertions that are unwarranted (to both me and Jim). My jaw dropped at your incredulous statement to Jim:
Your words would make even the most open-minded person in the world not want to dialogue with you...it's hopeless.
Couldn't ask for a better example of your tendency toward extreme conclusions. If people get upset with you, the problem may lie not only in what you say, but how you say it.
Bowing out...
Luke, I know I had said i wasn't going to respond to you anymore, but the flesh is weak.
You say that we're not talking about Yale or Princeton, but an institution that is firmly evangelical. You do know, of course, that both Yale and Princeton were at one time "firmly evangelical", don't you?
Steve can speak for himself, of course, but I would be careful of accusing other people of slander, as you did me, in the light of that last paragraph you wrote to him.
As for your response to me, I've never made the claims that you attribute to me. Although I disagree with him, Dr. Blomberg wrote a fine post and I hope we hear more from him. So your statement that I believe myself to be the only objective one here and the only one contributing is false on its face. Or is that pesky 9th commandment one of those "ambiguous" things?
The fact is that I have referred to actual publications to support my contentions. I have sought to interact with and critique your actual words rather than impute motives to you. You and others might not agree with my conclusions, but I've certainly offered more than PoMo's "Can't we all just get along." In response, the specifics that I raise go ignored and the questions that I put to you go unanswered. So be it.
Go ahead and take the last word.
Jim,
I'm trying to figure out what questions have gone unanswered. If it's about Roman Catholicism, then I don't know much and didn't answer because I honestly don't know much about it. I am familiar with some Catholic scholars and have some Catholic friends, but you seem to know far more about it than myself, so I honestly don't know what to say. You say they've traditionally equated scripture and tradition, but I don't think you can attribute that belief to every Catholic.
Anyways, if you can let me know of any other questions you have asked that have gone unanswered (besides RC), then I will gladly answer them (or do my best). Sometimes I just get caught up in typing that I forget to address all the specifics. Thanks
I've been invited to make some further clarifications, so I will, though it will require a longer than typical post. Denver Seminary was founded in 1950. It had two women M.Div. student in its first entering class in an era when few women were welcome even as any kind of students in evangelical seminaries. It hired Vernon Grounds in its second year of existence as academic dean. Vernon became president in 1957 and served in that role until 1979. He still comes into his office, at age 93, almost every day and meets with folks from every era of his life. Vernon has been an egalitarian for decades. He supported women in ordained ministry in the 1970s with several high profile on-campus conferences. But he has always been enormously sensitive to the diversity of perspectives in the evangelical world on this issue. Denver Seminary has never required complementarianism (note that it has an e as its fifth letter) to be affirmed by any of its employees. It has thus never made any changes in this respect. People are free to hold whatever views they believe the Bible best supports but have to be able to articulate and defend their views well. Students who have felt this was not the seminary environment that was best for them have regularly chosen to go elsewhere. So it is not accurate to say we have changed in this respect.
Bill Klein does not support open theism. He is not even a classic Arminian, since he holds, as all of our full-time faculty must, to the perseverance of the saints. But again, Vernon, as a life-long Arminian (but very centrist and very irenic), helped to ensure that no other point of the Calvinist-Arminian debate would become part of our doctrinal statement. That, too, has never changed. Those who have felt a seminary should affirm five-point Calvinism have usually gone elsewhere to study. When the open theist debate emerged, we had a full-faculty conversation and agreed that we would never hire or keep any faculty, full-time or adjunct, who was an open theist. We confirmed that we had no one in our midst teaching who defended open theism. We barely hear anything more about the issue today on campus.
As for training people for evangelical ministry, that remains our commitment. I realize there are people who think it's impossible to be consistently evangelical and remain in the Roman Catholic church. I will leave that debate to the Catholics! But the Vatican since the late 60s has given people a huge leeway on a lot of issues all across the theological spectrum even while not officially changing certain dogmas that Protestants would like to see changed. What I do know is that I mentored Matt and have no question about his sincerity and understanding in affirming our statement. In fact, St. John Vianney Seminary, the diocesan school in town that emerged out of the ashes of the very liberal old St. Thomas seminary, has several faculty members who came to Christ through Campus Crusade for Christ and have contextualized their materials for use with Catholics. The most evangelical of them all is Tim Gray, who was Matt's undergrad mentor at a Catholic college in the East before both moved out here. I for one, find this something entirely to celebrate and not to bemoan. Matt realized after his article was published that he could have said and clarified some things better, but we also believe in academic freedom and did not censor his original writing. It's not easy living in the two worlds he does; he gets a lot of shots and we don't need to add to them.
Of course, I could be too close to issues to see them clearly. So I regularly interact with grads, community people, visitors, etc., about their perceptions as I formulate and revise my own. On the set of issues that these posts have discussed I know that Jim's perceptions are in a very tiny minority and it's interesting that the handful of other people I'm aware of who share them are also those who have had almost no regular, detailed contact with events on campus over the past twenty years. So I think my perceptions are pretty accurate here.
Dr. Blomberg, thank you for your post. It was quite helpful. For the sake of clarification, just let me address a couple of the things that you mention, as it seems there may be a couple of inaccurate assumptions being made.
1) I'm well aware that Dr. Grounds has been an egalitarian for decades. I am also well aware that the seminary was founded in 1950 by men of the Conservative Baptist Association. Since even now complementarianism (and the "e" is the sixth letter, not the fifth)is the official position of the association, I find it difficult to fathom that the men who founded the Seminary would have intended the institution to support the ordination of women. In 1950, the thought that CB churches would ordain women or CB seminaries would approve of such, probably wasn't even on their radar.
Nevertheless, Denver does have a history of egalitarianism, no doubt.
2) I certainly never said that Bill Klein was an open theist. I raised the issue of his article simply to say that he seems much more sympathetic to a view which his own Seminary, as you say, has ruled out of bounds, then he does with historic, orthodox, evangelical Calvinism. And yes, I think that's a problem.
3) I don't know if you were inferring that I did, but I took no "shots" at Matt, and I have no doubts about his sincerity. You speak highly of him and so I must assume that he understands what his own church teaches. The fact remains that the RCC requires as dogma which obligates the faithful, certain beliefs which cannot be reconciled with historic evangelicalism. The authority of tradition is one and the doctrine of justification is another.
But I don't suppose we're going to get much beyond that. Thank you for your input, Dr. Blomberg.
Luke,
I am responding to this a bit late, as I failed to keep up with this thread of comments.
But...just wanted to say thanks for your kind words about me above. It was appreciated.
Christ's continued blessings upon you, and to everyone else.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home